Purely hypothetically, supose I’m arrested for a minor offense, say something along the lines of a DUI, shoplifting, driving without a license, or disorderly conduct. Normally you bond out, but say I don’t for some reason. Maybe I have no collateral to hire a bail bondsman or relatives to rely on. Maybe I’m afraid zombies will get me if I’m released. What happens? Do I eventually get kicked out and realeased on my own reckognisance with a court date in hand to make a bed available for someone else. Or do I stay in jail until I see a judge enter a plea, or until my trial if I plead not guilty?
Not all states even allow bond. Some are put up the cash or sit.
You stay in jail till bail is posted or your trial completes with a not guilty verdict. Other possibilities are after your plea they decide bail isn’t necessary and the send you walking out the front door with an expected court date or they try your case immediately, the outcome determines where you go.
You don’t however get the option to sit in jail because you like it there. Either they have reason to hold you or they boot your but out the door.
A lot of minor crimes are “released on your own recognizance”. You’re not a chronic offender, a danger, or a flight risk. Odds are you will show up for your trial. Why would they hold you? They have to arraign you within a certain time - 24 hours, 72 hours? If you or your defence lawyer ask for release without bail, the prosecutor usually has to have a good argument why that would not be a good idea - record, severity of the crime, flight risk (“He has a passport and family in Italy, your honor”). If you established enough to own a car for DUI, you probably have a job etc. The prosecutor might ask for conditions - only allowed to leave house to go to work, stay way from where you shoplifted, no alcohol… if it made sense to the judge. I believe violating bail conditions is a separate crime?
If it were a violent crime and there’s a risk you would repeat or go after the witnesses, they might demand more surety or keep you in.
It has happened that people were held while their trial progressed, and then when they were found guilty and sentenced, the sentence was less than what they had already “served” while the trial was underway, and that time was counted as their sentence time, so they were released immediately.
That has often made me wonder if jail wasn’t so particularly terrible and you had one of those “30 days or $1000” littering-or speeding in construction sites type fines, if if wouldn’t be worth just staying in jail for a month (presuming you had enough leave time to do so) and saving your money. That said, most people who would have the type of job situation where they could sit in jail for a month most likely also have the spare cash to pay the fine, but it is still an interesting idea to me.
It really seems to me that is a bad deal for the state - the fines are great if they get paid, but if they can’t pay, the state not only suffers for having the offense occur in the first place, but then has to feed and board some minorly scummy individual for a month as retribution? There really ought to be a better way to deal with that.
In some places, the holding cell awaiting trial is local; it may or may not be better than the state pen where they send you. It won’t have all the facilities like exercise, library, etc. but it maybe doesn’t have the organized gangs and such that pens with long-term inmates have, since a lot of people come and go before they can get organized. They may also keep you locked up more rather than roaming the whole building.
I have heard of people wanting to do time in holding, since it was easier safer; also, Canada is in the process of dismantling the 2-for-1 disincentive for holding criminals. People who knew they were going to go to jail would stall as long as possible, to shorten the overall time; pretrial counted 2 for 1.
This was an incetive to keep the courts going; typically, Canada or USA, a crime can take a year or more to go to trial. The original theory was that if the prosecution asked for a delay, there was this time-and-a-half penalty. It somehow morphed into all time spent and double not 1.5; now that it’s been removed, there’s no incentive for the prosecution to hurry up and get their case ready.
(Look at OJ Simpson - he asked for a trial as soon as possible - it took a year. Casey Anthony apparently spent 3 years in jail before being convicted of anything. The biggest problem, north or south, is the speed of the justice system.)
I don’t think you are given the option. The sentencing judge decides whether to fine or jail you. Though it could be that you would subsequently be jailed if you didn’t pay the fine (not sure how they manage these things in your jurisdiction).
For certain minor offense charges, such as DUI, they either release you on your own recognizance immediately after booking or hold you at the local jail for up to 48 hours, after which they must release you. It’s better to pay the bail than be in jail for 48 hours.
Many many years ago, IIRC, Ontario had sentences like “$30 or 30 days”. Even back then, you only stayed in if your were indigent or trying to make a point, it wasn’t worth it otherwise. I think somehwere around the 70’s or 80’s that was ruled inappropriate, discriminated against the poor.